CINF 690 and WRKO

[revdoug1@myfairpoint.net]

I didn't realize that CINF wasn't using the old CBF tower.  Why?

Quoting "Dan.Strassberg" <dan.strassberg@att.net>:
> Unlike CBF, which was ND-U from a tower whose efficiency probably met
> the requirements for a US Class A, CINF used minimally efficient
> towers and was directional to the north, albeit not strongly. (Canada
> does not seem to require the higher efficiency of its Class As that
> the US requires, but some, such as CJBC and CFZM, meet it anyhow.)
> Because of the DA, CINF's signal to the south was not even quite equal
> to 10 kW ND from towers of minimum Class B efficiency. During the
> period when Montreal's legacy Class A signals (that is 690 and 940)
> were off the air, co-channel and first-adjacent AMs in the US got a
> nice free ride on interference, but even when CINF and CINW returned,
> things were a lot better for the US stations than they had been in the
> days of CBF and CBM. I wonder if the US stations' NIF values were ever
> recalculated. 
>
> -----
> Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
> eFax 1-707-215-6367
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <revdoug1@myfairpoint.net>
> To: "=?utf-8?b??=" <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 7:54 AM
> Subject: CINF 690 and WRKO
>
>
> > Just curious: Has the recent demise of Montreal's CINF affected the
> > night signal of WRKO in any significant way in the western suburbs
> > of Boston as well as points north and farther west?  I know Kevin
> > said 'RKO came in loud and clear during his recent trek through
> > Indiana, but I'm talking New England, in parts of which 690 used to
> > blast 'RKO away at night.  -Doug
> >
>